Actually, yes, it does. Sorry to burst your authoritarian bubble there, but U.S. citizenship and due process are not things the U.S. government can remove without consent. If you hear otherwise, the U.S. government was doing something outrageously illegal.

The War on Terror is deliberately blurry to the point that any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy. Even if they aren't citizens, does that make it just? You live in a fantasy world where the U.S. government can do no wrong.

I'm not sure, but if the UK is anything like the US, I wouldn't be surprised if customers had no choice in the end.

You answered your own question. Carrier-grade NAT would allow ISPs to charge a premium for a residential IP (and an even bigger premium for a static IP).

The whole point of IPv6 is to do away with the scarcity of end-to-end static IPs. From a business perspective, IPv6 would destroy the investment these existing customers have made.

The only one available in their area. If customers have a choice of two (or three!) ISPs, they will all use carrier-grade NAT.

IPv6 alleviates scarcity, and thus profits made on that scarcity. This is why it will not be implemented without government intervention.

Do you know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.

If students are motivated enough, they can find plenty of online math resources on their own.

Except that redistribution rights are important today. Why should a company be able to restrict me giving away copies of programs?

As far as Stallman is concerned, it's the philosophy that comes first, not "industry support" of whatever the current fad is.

Your political dog-whistling really doesn't have any bearing on the merits of Free software.

If we had the ability to build anything of this scale on the Moon and keep it habitable, sending back 25 PB/year would be trivial in comparison.

When a driverless alternative exists, I would gladly give up my "freedom" to drive. We kill the shit out of ourselves with cars, and just about any driverless system would greatly reduce casualties.

Unfortunately, we'll have to drag the reactionary wingnuts in the U.S. kicking and screaming every step of the way. Unions and labor rights are a part of the constitution of many other first-world nations; that's how far behind the curve the U.S. currently is.

We have too many people in the U.S. that blame the government for things their employers do to them. You would think they'd learn by now...

Don't forget mustaches. World leaders with mustaches commit atrocities in the name of facial hair.

More specifically, employers think a piece of paper is everything and they have absolute control of decent wages.

Unfortunately, with zero experience, there are hardly any employers that will hire you without a degree. Employers need to start taking responsibility for workforce training again.

Most of the world isn't participating in the U.S. elections*.

*Unless they're trans-national corporations, courtesy of the Citizens United decision.

I prefer a passive-aggressive design; it can be arrogant in more extreme conditions.

The era of plentiful natural fossil fuel reserves will end. With that in mind, we have to start thinking about liquid fuels like ethanol as energy storage. It will take significant energy input to make any highly-energy-dense substance, but we can use that process to capture vast amounts of energy (solar, nuclear fission, fusion?!?) for use in those internal-combustion clunkers.

That said, we will be far more worried about the abysmal efficiency of internal combustion engines if we think of the fuel as chemical energy storage.

The only question I
ever thought was hard
is "Do I like Kirk?
Or do I like Picard?"

If I had to place my bets on the effectiveness of fighting a pandemic with science or "personal responsibility", I'd choose science.